Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.96---Regular First Appeal---Maintainability---Objection as to competency of appellant---Power of attorney/Wakalatnama executed by the appellant before proceeding abroad---Validity---Appellant had given 'wakalatnama' to his counsel/brother, which showed that the counsel had been duly authorized by appellant to contest the suit on his behalf before the Trial Court and also to file appeal, revision and other ancillary matters, arising out of the suit, thus, appeal had competently been filed and objection raised by the respondent-University over the maintainability of the appeal was overruled being misconceived. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.IX, R.13---Suit for recovery of damages---Application for setting aside ex-parte order---Execution of bond between the appellant and respondent-University for foreign higher studies on scholarship---Breach of terms and conditions of bond---Filing of suit for recovery of damages---Disappearance of counsel/brother of appellant from the proceedings of the suit---Passing of ex-parte order/decree twice---First application for setting aside ex-parte order was accepted, however, the second one was dismissed---Validity---Appellant was living abroad and instead, his counsel/brother was pursuing the recovery suit on his behalf---Appellant was twicely placed ex-parte, however, first order was set aside on his request by the Trial Court and subsequently, when he once again absented himself from the proceedings, he was proceeded against ex-parte and finally after recording of evidence of the respondent-University, ex-parte decree was passed---Contents of the application qua setting aside the ex-parte decree showed that the same were flimsy, bald and unsubstantiated---It was the duty of the appellant to have satisfied the court qua his non-appearance and diligence in pursuing his case by forwarding reasonable and justifiable grounds for his absence, however, he failed to do so, thus, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against him for recovery of damages---Regular First Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Chairman, Wapda and others v. Dr. Tabassum Zeb 2002 SCMR 692; Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Board of Trustees, Employees, Employees' Old-Age Benefits and others 2011 SCMR 1102; Aisha Bibi v. Zafar Iqbal 2016 MLD 647 and Javaid Siddiq v. Muhammad JavaidUmar Khan 2008 SCMR 1417 rel. Azhar Ali for Appellant. Muhammad Jahanzeb Khan Muhammadzai for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th October, 2023.

Summary: (a) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)--- ----S. 21---Locus poenitentiae, principle of---Scope---Power to add, amend, vary or rescind is always available to the Government or the executive authority to rescind any notification or order till a decisive step is taken--- Perpetual rights cannot be gained on the basis of illegal and flawed order---When the order has been acquired in an illegal manner, the rule of locus poenitentiae is applicable. Muhammad Hussain Shaikh and others v. University of Sindh and others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 696 rel. (b) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act (IV of 2023)--- ----S. 17---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Locus poenitentiae, principle of---Applicability---Admission test---Responsibility---Unfair means, use of---Re-examination---Jurisdiction---Provincial Government scrapped the result of MDCAT conducted for admissions to Medical and Dental Colleges and had directed for testing afresh---Validity---Provincial Government under S. 17 of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Act, 2023 was empowered alone to conduct MDCAT examination---Provincial Government had the authority to cancel the examination in terms of S. 2l of General Clauses Act, 1897---Provincial Government could not exercise such authority in vacuum unless there was sufficient material before Provincial Government justifying or even requiring for cancellation of examination---Unfair means were used in the examination on a very large scale and there was a racket behind the same---It was evident from report of Joint Investigation Team that it was a premeditated scheme of an organized group who devised scientifically sophisticated equipment for unfair means which were available in the market against a handsome amount---Though, only 219 persons were found involved using such devices, however, keeping in view the character and design of the devices which were not easily visible, there was a strong probability that a good number of students had used the devices---Candidates who were opposing re-testing had no vested right in the examination conducted by authorities---Provincial Government had the locus poenitentiae of re-testing---Re-testing would cause no prejudice to the candidates because if they had confidence in their abilities and intellect, then in the next examination they could again attain a better position---If the examination was not re-conducted, the candidates who were involved in unfair means would be in advantageous position as compared to those students who had worked hard and burnt midnight oil while preparing for the examination---High Court declared that when mass cheating was unearthed by Joint Investigation Team, the Provincial Government rightly cancelled MDCAT and such decision of Provincial Government cancelling the MDCAT and its direction for re-taking of MDCAT was in accordance with its mandate and did not call for any interference--- High Court directed Provincial Government to conduct MDCAT within the time period as provided by the cabinet (six weeks) ensuring transparency in the examination---High Court directed Medical and Dental Council to notify to Provincial Government after consulting admitting university as well as Provincial Government a date for MDCAT across the Province within a time period of six-weeks---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Rashid Ali Channa v. Muhammad Junaid Farooqui and others 2017 SCMR 1519; Jaudat Hassan v. Board of Secondary Education Karachi 2011 CLC 867; People University of Medical and Health Sciences for Women through Registrar v. Pakistan Ministry of Health Services Regulation and Coordination PLD 2021 Sindh 526; Naila Maqbool Laghari v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 2018 Sindh 391; Tanvi Sarwar v. Central Board of Secondary Education and others AIR 2015 SC 3454 and Qaiser Khan v. Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan 2013 PLC (C.S.) 1132 rel. Ms. Saba v. The Province of Sindh 2020 PLC (C.S.) 113 and Rida Fatima's case PLD 2022 Lahore 197 fol. Syed Abdul Huq, Habib Qureshi, Ms. Humaira Gul, Javed Iqbal Gulbela, Abbas Bakhtiar, Barrister Ibrahim Afridi, Tariq Khan and Usman Ayub for Petitioner. Amir Javed, Advocate General and Junaid Zaman, Additional Advocate General for Respondent-Government. Zia ur Rahman Tajik, Yasir Khattak, Sabah Ud Din Khattak, Waseem ud Din Khattak, Asif Ali Shah, Abdul Munim Khan (KMU), Kashan Abdullah (ETEA) and Sardar Saadat Ali (PM&DC) for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 2023. (i). Medical and Dental Colleges Admission Test (MDCAT) conducted on September 10th, 2023 is cancelled and shall be re-taken within 06-weeks' time in order to ensure timely admission into the medical institutions. (i) That the Provincial Government has no mandate to annul the examination which is the sole prerogative of the Council and has relied upon the judgment of Sindh High Court in the case of "Naila Maqbool Laghari v. Government of Sindh and others (PLD 2018 Sindh 391)", wherein, when the Provincial Government had cancelled similar examination for induction in Medical and Dental Colleges Universities, the Honourable Sindh High Court had set aside the said decision for lack of jurisdiction. The learned counsel have further maintained that since the said examination falls under the regulatory regime of the federal enactment i.e. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC), therefore, the Provincial Government has no authority to interfere in the same. The learned counsel have further maintained that nowhere in past when allegations regarding cheating surfaced/noticed in any examination, the entire examination was scrapped rather the persons involved in cheating should be put to task and the other candidates who were never found involved in cheating could be suffered for the same.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal granted --- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302(b), 334, 333 & 34—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 342, 382-B—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A—Model Criminal Trial Court—Conviction for qatl-i-amd and itlaf-e-udw—Scope on appeal. On the same prosecution evidence on which co-accused Juman and Zulfiqar had already been acquitted by the trial court, the appellants were convicted under Ss. 302(b)/34, P.P.C. and S. 334, P.P.C. (read with S. 333) with sentences of life imprisonment and payment of diyat/compensation, along with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. In appeal, the High Court reassessed the entire record and found the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt; convictions were set aside to safeguard the right to fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution. (b) Criminal trial ----Delay in FIR—Effect—Inference under the circumstances. The FIR was lodged with a delay of one day. In view of the surrounding facts, such delay assumed significance and could be attributed to consultation/deliberation; thus caution in appraisal of evidence was warranted. Reliance was placed on Mehmood Ahmed and others v. The State (1995 SCMR 127). (c) Criminal trial ----Ocular account—Material contradictions—Interested/chance witnesses not examined—Adverse inference. Prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent versions about who fired at the deceased, the parts of body hit, and the manner of injuries to the injured witnesses; some independent witnesses were given up. In terms of Art. 129(g), QSO, adverse inference was drawn that the withheld witnesses would not have supported the prosecution. When direct evidence is disbelieved to the extent of one accused assigned an effective role, the same witnesses cannot, without independent corroboration, sustain conviction of others assigned a similar role. Reliance was placed on Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed (2017 SCMR 344) and Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Akram (2009 SCMR 120). (d) Evidence ----Recovery and forensics—Transparency in dispatch—Exclusive possession—Weight. Weapons allegedly recovered on appellants’ pointation were dispatched to the FSL together with empties secured from the scene, instead of separately, undermining transparency; one weapon was recovered from an open place (jungle) and not from exclusive possession; delayed recovery further reduced probative value. Casings tallying with a weapon dispatched after the arrest lost significance. Reliance was placed on Asad Rehmat v. The State (2019 SCMR 1156). (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 39—Confession to police—Inadmissibility—Effect. Alleged admissions made before the Investigating Officer were inadmissible under Art. 39, QSO, and could not be used as substantive evidence against the appellants. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 225—Misjoinder/prejudice—Conviction without charge—Illegality. The appellants were convicted under S. 334, P.P.C. though they had never been charged for that offence. Such conviction, having misled the defence and occasioned failure of justice, was contrary to S. 225, Cr.P.C. and violative of the right to fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution. (g) Criminal trial ----Benefit of doubt—Principles restated. Even a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitles the accused to acquittal as of right, not as a matter of concession. Multiple infirmities—material contradictions, doubtful ocular account, unsafe recoveries/forensics, inadmissible confessions, and parity with acquitted co-accused—compelled extension of benefit of doubt. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772). (h) Distinguishing prosecution precedents—Rationale. Cases cited for the State/complainant were distinguishable: in Muhammad Bashir (2023 SCMR 190) FIR was prompt; in Sheeraz Khan (2010 SCMR 1772) evidence was consistent; in Anwar Shamim (2010 SCMR 1791) the issue turned on relationship of witnesses rather than contradictions present here. (g) Disposition— Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences under Ss. 302(b), 334 and 34, P.P.C. set aside; appellants acquitted and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Cited Cases: • Mehmood Ahmed v. The State 1995 SCMR 127 • Sardar Bibi v. Munir Ahmed 2017 SCMR 344 • Asad Rehmat v. The State 2019 SCMR 1156 • Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Akram 2009 SCMR 120 • Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 • Muhammad Bashir v. The State 2023 SCMR 190 (dist.) • Sheeraz Khan v. The State 2010 SCMR 1772 (dist.) • Anwar Shamim v. The State 2010 SCMR 1791 (dist.).

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The appellant entered into an agreement to purchase land measuring 230 kanals from Respondent No.1, who acted as an attorney for Respondents No. 2 and 3. The total sale consideration was set at PKR 224,250,000, of which the appellant initially paid PKR 20,000,000 as earnest money. However, the remaining balance was due by August 15, 2021. The respondents failed to transfer the land to the appellant despite multiple requests, leading the appellant to file a suit for specific performance and seek an interim injunction to prevent the respondents from selling or transferring the land. The Civil Judge, however, rejected the appellant's request for an interim injunction, directing them to deposit the remaining amount and warning that the suit would be dismissed if payment was not made. -----Issues: 1- Is the appellant entitled to an ad interim injunction to prevent the respondents from alienating the property while the main suit for specific performance is pending? -----2- Can an appeal be filed under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the denial of an ad interim injunction when the main application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is still pending? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court concluded that the appeal concerning the denial of an ad interim injunction is premature, as the primary application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is still pending with the trial court. Citing established legal precedent, the court noted that the refusal of an "ad interim" injunction does not constitute a final decision and does not impact the main application. The court disposed of the appeal, instructing the trial court to expedite and decide the pending application within ten days, ensuring both parties are given a fair hearing without influence from the current order. -----Citations/Precedents: Exceed (SMC Pvt. Ltd.) through President and Chief Executive Vs. ZTAF ZHONGXING Telecom Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Executive Director and another (2007 CLC 348)

Summary: Entry wound is bigger than exit, possibility of; Importance and requirement of site plan.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending